My notepad at the movies

I’ve seen a few movies recently – Jupiter Ascending, Mr Holmes, Dr Strangelove and The Interview. 

Jupiter Ascending was widely panned. A quick search of different reviews will show you what I mean. For what it’s worth though, I quite enjoyed it. Sure, the script was a bit shallow (and at points wasn’t quite coherent), and the characters weren’t very deep. But there was action, and it was visually gorgeous.

More importantly, I think I agree with this review on two fronts – firstly, that it’s exciting to see someone attempt to create a new world. Sure, maybe this one didn’t work, but part of achieving new successes is that you’ll get some failures. You don’t get a movie like The Matrix without there being a few failures along the way. So I think it’s exciting to see people having a go at world-building.

More importantly, I think a lot of what went wrong was in the script. The movie was visually gorgeous, and some of the concepts were intriguing. It just didn’t feel as though it had been pulled together fully, and the character development (particularly for the protagonist) felt quite weak.

So, worth seeing if you’re in a light mood, and ready for something fluffy.

Dr Strangelove was a lot of fun. I borrowed this from a friend, and really enjoyed it. It’s a comedy with a sharp tone that strikes home perfectly, and captures a lot of what must have felt ridiculous at the time. Well worth-seeing. And if you haven’t, I recommend reading up a little on the Wikipedia background, and particularly Peter Sellers’ experience making it – there’s some fascinating history there, including links to the original Red Alert novel. Definitely recommended.

The Interview has received a lot of press for different things, including the hacking attacks. I’ll just say that if you go in with low expectations, and are prepared for some very simple sexual humour, then you may enjoy it; and that the storyline does come together in a mildly satisfying way at the end.

Mr Holmes was a beautiful, thoughtful piece. It’s also a stunning movie piece – gorgeous English countryside, and beautifully shot. The story sounds complex (Sherlock Holmes remembering an earlier trip, and an even earlier case), but it’s actually told well, and quite easy to follow. It raises lots of interesting questions about identity and memory, and how we relate to other people.

Speaking of which, I do have one quibble with the film. [SPOILER ALERT: What follows relates to a late plot point in the movie]. There’s a point where, as part of his shift from someone purely concerned with the truth and thoughts, to someone concerned with feelings and emotions (in a simple binary depiction of one of the conflicts in the movie), that Sherlock Holmes writes to someone he’s met, lying to them about their father, in such a way as to make them feel better. In the context of the story it’s a touching moment – a lived example of Holmes valuing other people’s feelings, rather than purely focussing on the truth.

And I agree that feelings matter – we’re emotionally driven beings, for better or worse. But it struck me as a false dichotomy, to put him in a situation where he needed to either lie (and thus care for someone’s feelings), or tell the truth with a callous disregard for the emotional state of the person he was speaking to. I think in general, we can care for people and be truthful; and in the movie, I think the same thing could have been done – he could have written a letter that focussed on the emotion, and dealt with it, while remaining truthful.

So it’s a great movie overall, and worth seeing, but that false dichotomy irked me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s